More bloat in a browser? Riiight. And Azureus is soooo lightweight!
If a browser can implement the BitTorrent download protocol in a manner which provides reasonably good performance, that is a *good* thing for users. The extra "bloat" cannot be compared to the bloat of running another program altogether on top of your browser.
(disclaimer: I use and prefer Azureus as my BitTorrent client of choice. But, like almost all Java programs, it is resource intensive.)
I'm a law student, not a lawyer, and civil rights is also not my area of specialization. However, the "public accomodation" issue the parent refers to arises in a lot of federal legislation, including anti-discrimination laws of many kinds. One example is the Americans with Disabilities Act, which ensures equal access (non-discrimination) of disabled persons in places of public accomodation. My understanding is that the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled in Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324 (2004), that Southwest's website, as an electronic service was not cognizable as a public accomodation under the ADA, absent exigent circumstances shown. One such theory that could qualify as such circumstances is if the electronic site operates as a strong nexus or tie between the electronic site and a physical location (which itself operates as a public accomodation). From what I can tell of people's posts here... the forum on Blizzard's website serves as a nexus to another electronic location - the servers of World of Warcraft. Based on this theory, I doubt Blizzard's forum (or their game world) would be found as a public accomodation, and thus providing protection under the ADA.
This doesn't even begin to address the question parent also raises, of whether or not there is an appropriate anti-discrimination statute in place (state or federal) that would protect gay/lesbian/transgendered people as a class from discrimination here.
Again, this is by no means a definitive analysis, and as a mere law student, I am not qualified to give legal advice. However, this seems to be a case of "bad publicity" for Blizzard, and less of a case of "legal consequences". A lawsuit would only serve to draw public attention and ire against the company, but I'm not very convinced they could/would win.
Trespass to chattels of an electronic form (e.g. your computer files, your network) must be accompanied by a showing of physical damage in order to hold up in court.
Ironically, in the United States is one of the countries where your comment *least* applies. Time and time again, the Judicial System has struck down treaties ratified by Congress on matters of Constitutionality. The rationale? Subscribing to a treaty that places legal authority in a foreign body (whether it be the U.N. or another nation) takes legislative power out of the hands of Congress (which is the only Constitutionally authorized legislative body) and into the hands of... well... someone else. So while Copyrights are internationally honored, they are honored according to local (read: national) Copyright Law.
So in countries where piracy is "rampant" and sites like Pirate Bay operate without fear... what is happening is that the copyright held by the MPAA is honored (i.e. the MPAA is still recognized as the official copyright holder of the content in question), but under Swedish (or whatever country) law, that copyright is less powerful -- they cannot prevent Pirate Bay from doing what they are doing.
As a current UCD student studying Computer Science (not to mention an ethnic Chinese), I feel compelled to chime in on this subject. From my experience, to say that Professor Matloff is prejudiced against foreigners is quite simply unjustified. No man I know has been more influential in another ethnicity's "community" than Professor Matloff. He is regularly active in the Asian-American communities in a number of capacities: appearing on local Chinese tv/radio talk shows (with no translator, as he speaks fluent Chinese!), testifying before Congress on foreign labor issues, advocating on behalf of minority science/technology employees who are being discriminated against... it goes on and on. With the exception of the grandparent, I have never heard anyone claim that Norm Matloff was prejudiced in any way, and would be surprised if I found the claim had any merit whatsoever.
It is true that your CD-Key allows you to continue to play... but the content that is on the CD is obsolete. And I'm not talking obsolete as in it needs a new patch. Steam will deliver a brand new program to play the game/mod you want -- there is no point in installing the game from the CD at all.
If the game companies business model involves giving the software away for free, then charging for access to the servers, that would pretty much put them out of business, wouldn't it?
Yes, but then they shouldn't use a business model that puts them out of business. To build copyright law and other legislation to protect such companies is akin to the RIAA and MPAA lobbying for the DMCA.
If the software is truly free, and the company is only in the business of charging for access to servers... then preventing others from creating alternative servers is ANTI-COMPETITIVE.
For those that are wondering about the case I mentioned regarding Blizzard vs. bnetd -- bnetd lost.
Summary judgement was granted to Blizzard on all counts, and denied to bnetd on all counts. The EFF is appealing the decision.
Some people have alluded to this already, but this just goes to show that "Digital Rights Management" present more of a violation of digital rights than a management system.
When I pay for a game, I should have access to play the game from the moment I own it until the end of time. The ability to continue playing the game should not rest in the hands of the company from which I purchased it.
Take for example, the current EFFbattle against Blizzard Entertainment. If Blizzard decides to discontinue battle.net in the future, should legitimate paying customers be the ones who suffer? After all, they paid for a game with the expectation that Internet gameplay was one of the many features available to increase replay value. Thus, if they want to take matters into their own hands and create custom servers to allow continued online play, that should be their right.
The same goes for Steam. After all, when Half-Life first was released, they used Won.net to host their online gameplay. I cannot count the number of times that I was unable to play (despite having a legitimate CD-Key) because either the Master CD-Key server was down, unreachable, lagged, or just malfunctioning. Now they've moved to Steam and everyone who has the original Half-Life game finds their CD has been rendered obsolete!
For this reason, users should have the right to do more than simply "make a backup copy". They should have the right to crack, break, and generally f*** up copy protection. They should have the right to run private servers for online play. Bottom line -- they should have the right to decide whether or not they can continue normal use of a program which they purchased fair and square. After the money changes hands, the game belongs to me -- not the company. So get your grubby hands off, you greedy bastards.
My player does it fine. Apex AD-1500. As far as I know, my parents' player that I purchased for them does as well... Apex AD-5131.
http://www.dvdrhelp.com and check out the Player Database... tells you what players has what features.
Just look at what Google turns up as #1 for the (potentially legitimate) search 'ninja'.
Getting #1 on Google's pagerank? Now that's what I call REAL ULTIMATE POWER!
Slashdot Mirror
More bloat in a browser? Riiight. And Azureus is soooo lightweight!
If a browser can implement the BitTorrent download protocol in a manner which provides reasonably good performance, that is a *good* thing for users. The extra "bloat" cannot be compared to the bloat of running another program altogether on top of your browser.
(disclaimer: I use and prefer Azureus as my BitTorrent client of choice. But, like almost all Java programs, it is resource intensive.)
I'm a law student, not a lawyer, and civil rights is also not my area of specialization. However, the "public accomodation" issue the parent refers to arises in a lot of federal legislation, including anti-discrimination laws of many kinds. One example is the Americans with Disabilities Act, which ensures equal access (non-discrimination) of disabled persons in places of public accomodation. My understanding is that the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled in Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324 (2004), that Southwest's website, as an electronic service was not cognizable as a public accomodation under the ADA, absent exigent circumstances shown. One such theory that could qualify as such circumstances is if the electronic site operates as a strong nexus or tie between the electronic site and a physical location (which itself operates as a public accomodation). From what I can tell of people's posts here... the forum on Blizzard's website serves as a nexus to another electronic location - the servers of World of Warcraft. Based on this theory, I doubt Blizzard's forum (or their game world) would be found as a public accomodation, and thus providing protection under the ADA.
This doesn't even begin to address the question parent also raises, of whether or not there is an appropriate anti-discrimination statute in place (state or federal) that would protect gay/lesbian/transgendered people as a class from discrimination here.
Again, this is by no means a definitive analysis, and as a mere law student, I am not qualified to give legal advice. However, this seems to be a case of "bad publicity" for Blizzard, and less of a case of "legal consequences". A lawsuit would only serve to draw public attention and ire against the company, but I'm not very convinced they could/would win.
Trespass to chattels of an electronic form (e.g. your computer files, your network) must be accompanied by a showing of physical damage in order to hold up in court.
hate.
The Flash is faster. :/
Ironically, in the United States is one of the countries where your comment *least* applies. Time and time again, the Judicial System has struck down treaties ratified by Congress on matters of Constitutionality. The rationale? Subscribing to a treaty that places legal authority in a foreign body (whether it be the U.N. or another nation) takes legislative power out of the hands of Congress (which is the only Constitutionally authorized legislative body) and into the hands of ... well... someone else. So while Copyrights are internationally honored, they are honored according to local (read: national) Copyright Law.
So in countries where piracy is "rampant" and sites like Pirate Bay operate without fear... what is happening is that the copyright held by the MPAA is honored (i.e. the MPAA is still recognized as the official copyright holder of the content in question), but under Swedish (or whatever country) law, that copyright is less powerful -- they cannot prevent Pirate Bay from doing what they are doing.
As a current UCD student studying Computer Science (not to mention an ethnic Chinese), I feel compelled to chime in on this subject. From my experience, to say that Professor Matloff is prejudiced against foreigners is quite simply unjustified. No man I know has been more influential in another ethnicity's "community" than Professor Matloff. He is regularly active in the Asian-American communities in a number of capacities: appearing on local Chinese tv/radio talk shows (with no translator, as he speaks fluent Chinese!), testifying before Congress on foreign labor issues, advocating on behalf of minority science/technology employees who are being discriminated against... it goes on and on. With the exception of the grandparent, I have never heard anyone claim that Norm Matloff was prejudiced in any way, and would be surprised if I found the claim had any merit whatsoever.
It is true that your CD-Key allows you to continue to play... but the content that is on the CD is obsolete. And I'm not talking obsolete as in it needs a new patch. Steam will deliver a brand new program to play the game/mod you want -- there is no point in installing the game from the CD at all.
You can still install/play Half-Life without touching Steam or any sort of authentication.
But not over the internet, unless you choose to violate your EULA and TOS.
If the game companies business model involves giving the software away for free, then charging for access to the servers, that would pretty much put them out of business, wouldn't it? Yes, but then they shouldn't use a business model that puts them out of business. To build copyright law and other legislation to protect such companies is akin to the RIAA and MPAA lobbying for the DMCA. If the software is truly free, and the company is only in the business of charging for access to servers... then preventing others from creating alternative servers is ANTI-COMPETITIVE.
You guys have some low ass standards for informative.
For those that are wondering about the case I mentioned regarding Blizzard vs. bnetd -- bnetd lost. Summary judgement was granted to Blizzard on all counts, and denied to bnetd on all counts. The EFF is appealing the decision.
Some people have alluded to this already, but this just goes to show that "Digital Rights Management" present more of a violation of digital rights than a management system.
When I pay for a game, I should have access to play the game from the moment I own it until the end of time. The ability to continue playing the game should not rest in the hands of the company from which I purchased it.
Take for example, the current EFF battle against Blizzard Entertainment. If Blizzard decides to discontinue battle.net in the future, should legitimate paying customers be the ones who suffer? After all, they paid for a game with the expectation that Internet gameplay was one of the many features available to increase replay value. Thus, if they want to take matters into their own hands and create custom servers to allow continued online play, that should be their right.
The same goes for Steam. After all, when Half-Life first was released, they used Won.net to host their online gameplay. I cannot count the number of times that I was unable to play (despite having a legitimate CD-Key) because either the Master CD-Key server was down, unreachable, lagged, or just malfunctioning. Now they've moved to Steam and everyone who has the original Half-Life game finds their CD has been rendered obsolete!
For this reason, users should have the right to do more than simply "make a backup copy". They should have the right to crack, break, and generally f*** up copy protection. They should have the right to run private servers for online play. Bottom line -- they should have the right to decide whether or not they can continue normal use of a program which they purchased fair and square. After the money changes hands, the game belongs to me -- not the company. So get your grubby hands off, you greedy bastards.
My player does it fine. Apex AD-1500. As far as I know, my parents' player that I purchased for them does as well... Apex AD-5131. http://www.dvdrhelp.com and check out the Player Database... tells you what players has what features.
131WPM, 4 errors on TypingTest.com ... no BS, I swear!
Just look at what Google turns up as #1 for the (potentially legitimate) search 'ninja'. Getting #1 on Google's pagerank? Now that's what I call REAL ULTIMATE POWER!